Of course they do.
There isn't an imam in the country who would say that gays can get married, and if there was, there wouldn't be for long, because someone would come and cut their head off.
Human beings reason by means of concepts and definitions, and we also make laws by means of definitions, and if you don't know how to operate with respect for those definitions, you can't make the law.
An individual who is impotent, or another who is infertile, does not change the definition of marriage in principle, because between a man and a woman, in principle, procreation is always possible, and it is that possibility which gave rise to the institution of marriage in the first place, as a matter of law and governance.
But when it is impossible, as between two males or two females, where you're not just talking about something that's incidentally impossible: It's impossible in principle, and that means that, if you say that that's a marriage, you are saying marriage can be understood in principle apart from procreation. You have changed its definition in such a way as, in fact, to destroy the necessity of the institution, since the only reason it has existed in human societies and civilizations was to regulate, from a social point of view, the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation.
When you start playing games in this way, you are actually acting as if the institution has no basis independent of your own arbitrary whim.
The purpose of a marriage is to have children, that's why we have the concept of it in the first place. Any marriage that does not produce children is either fake or a failure.
tbh the concept of marriage being backed by a state really bugs the fuck out of me. It unnecessarily puts a GOVERNMENT in place of something that was originally a religious tradition.
You shouldn't have to have a fuckin' marriage LOICENSE for something that your religion freely advocates.
I know some ethnotrads actually support having the state enforcing marriage between man and a woman because it encourages the making of HOMOGENOUS ethno babbies and maintains a stable family and societal structure, but at the same time the marriage between the church and government also has allowed the far left to capture the government and fuck men and fathers over in divorces/instances where the father has been 100% in the right yet the gynocentric society has simped for the woman.
Insert "Tradcucks are literal incels, who are so desperate to get laid that they will sell out not just their assets, not even just themselves, but their entire gender just for a passing tolerance from women."
Traditionalism is by default authoritarian, which is why I cannot support a state-enforced mandate on marriage. Part of the reason why we got to where we are and the fierce resistance against marriage is because of that huge attachment between society and government. You do not need the government to attach itself to what is essentially a religious tradition, because as I said above, it's allowed the far left and the gynocentric tradcucks to essentially capture the government to punish men and boys.
One of the many reasons why we have fatherless homes is not just because of the breakdown of traditional family values in society, but also because the government became a too powerful institution that enforced anti-fatherly policies at the end of a gun (child support, etc).
So tradcucking is not the answer - the genie has been left out of the bottle and legislating morality will turn us into China 2.0, but going the opposite route by just staying away from women in general because of gynocentrism IMO doesn't help either.
Sorry for the MILQUETOAST FENCE SITTING view but the solution seems a bit more complex than going one way or the other to me.
With the exception of those who have some kind of medical condition that prevents it. A man shooting blanks or woman not producing viable eggs is no ones fault and I would not go as far as to say their marriage is fake or a failure. They could still adopt or play an important role in their niece or nephews lives.
If they cannot have a child then they failed to pass on their genetics. It's not their fault, but it is the outcome. Adopting a child or helping out with their family's children are of course very noble and positive, but it's not why they got married in the first place.
That is the corrupted form of it. There is a reason marriage is supposed to be "Till death do we part" not "After you have enough money I'll leave and take whatever I can"
And she was required to keep his home upkept and his children properly raised.
I can tell you from experience I am well willing to pay the majority of my bills alone to have my food cooked, my laundry done, and my house clean, leaving me to relax and not worry after working all day.
It was a good thing when the roles of it were rigidly enforced by social shaming, so both parties felt the burn to keep up their side of the bargain. Women especially were under far harsher scrutiny to maintain their side because of how much easier their side was.
Well, I don't have or want kids, I'm capable of cooking and I can use a washing machine.
Maybe in the days before most mundane tasks were automated, their role was worth something.
But in 2021, where I can buy a vacuum that drives itself around the room without any input from me, I don't see their value. Every single thing they do can be automated except their biological purpose, but even that is being worked on.
Its not incapability. Its that I just worked 10-12 hours of hard labor and want to sit down. And then be handed good food. You don't know how great it is until you have it. We will never truly go back to those days, but when they did exist they were in fact good things.
You've started from the point of "I don't want them" and then worked backwards, so of course you won't see their value. You aren't looking at it as a cost/benefit analysis, only a "how can I justify myself." A trait you share with them.
Well, that's fair enough. Some people prefer to exchange their money for convenience.
I am looking at it with cost/benefit analysis, and based off losing half of my assets when it goes to shit and getting accused of rape to maximize the payoff, I think the cost is far too high.
Are you telling me that ordering food and having easy to use/automated appliances would somehow cost more than half someone will ever earn?
Is there any more to this story? Like he was brandishing a weapon or something like that? It certainly doesn't look like it, but figure I should check.
UK has a lot of great people, but the future looks fucking bleak. Tyrants leading jackboot thugs, how do they live with themselves?
I can't imagine so, it's actually getting quite sad in the UK. They're actively trying to pass laws which makes everyone but straight white people a protected class.
They've tried it a few times and they actually fail usually. But I can't imagine that happening if labour get back in. Although if they do the country is fucked anyway
If Labour gets back in, we're going to have a Fake Golden Age through misattributed euphoria. Then they're going to go democrat style regards elections, governance and control underneath it all.
The lower class/working class will ignore it as they get their £15 an hour (ignoring that costs have gone up), the middle class will bemoan being squeezed still even though they voted against the Conservatives and wanted change and the upper class will just shift tact along with the current leadership.
Technically election fraud, meddling, and conspiracy to meddle are crimes, yet even with irrefutable proof, video evidence, and a live hacking demonstration of how the votes were changed during a Georgia Senate hearing by a security expert weren't enough to do anything about it.
So "technically", the First Amendment means nothing in today's Clown World, and I wouldn't doubt that we'll see the same sort of nonsense happening in the U.S., in the not too distant future.
I bet the UK police ignore thousands of imams preaching much worse
Of course they do. There isn't an imam in the country who would say that gays can get married, and if there was, there wouldn't be for long, because someone would come and cut their head off.
One law for brown people, another law for whitey.
Considering how not armed those police are, its probably far too dangerous to even enter those mosques.
All of this oppression is only possible because they assume we will just roll over and accept it.
Allen Keyes
The purpose of a marriage is to have children, that's why we have the concept of it in the first place. Any marriage that does not produce children is either fake or a failure.
tbh the concept of marriage being backed by a state really bugs the fuck out of me. It unnecessarily puts a GOVERNMENT in place of something that was originally a religious tradition.
You shouldn't have to have a fuckin' marriage LOICENSE for something that your religion freely advocates.
I know some ethnotrads actually support having the state enforcing marriage between man and a woman because it encourages the making of HOMOGENOUS ethno babbies and maintains a stable family and societal structure, but at the same time the marriage between the church and government also has allowed the far left to capture the government and fuck men and fathers over in divorces/instances where the father has been 100% in the right yet the gynocentric society has simped for the woman.
Wonder how we can resolve this.
insert the "your post was so dumb everyone lost braincells from reading it" copypasta
Insert "Tradcucks are literal incels, who are so desperate to get laid that they will sell out not just their assets, not even just themselves, but their entire gender just for a passing tolerance from women."
Traditionalism is by default authoritarian, which is why I cannot support a state-enforced mandate on marriage. Part of the reason why we got to where we are and the fierce resistance against marriage is because of that huge attachment between society and government. You do not need the government to attach itself to what is essentially a religious tradition, because as I said above, it's allowed the far left and the gynocentric tradcucks to essentially capture the government to punish men and boys.
One of the many reasons why we have fatherless homes is not just because of the breakdown of traditional family values in society, but also because the government became a too powerful institution that enforced anti-fatherly policies at the end of a gun (child support, etc).
So tradcucking is not the answer - the genie has been left out of the bottle and legislating morality will turn us into China 2.0, but going the opposite route by just staying away from women in general because of gynocentrism IMO doesn't help either.
Sorry for the MILQUETOAST FENCE SITTING view but the solution seems a bit more complex than going one way or the other to me.
JuSt GeT a ArTiFiCiAl WoMb BrO
Well grow our own kids, simple as fam /s
Your best argument in favor of women is to call me gay for being against them. Your own position proves how weak the ground you stand on is.
If the state is involved, it should be for civil unions and that’s it.
With the exception of those who have some kind of medical condition that prevents it. A man shooting blanks or woman not producing viable eggs is no ones fault and I would not go as far as to say their marriage is fake or a failure. They could still adopt or play an important role in their niece or nephews lives.
If they cannot have a child then they failed to pass on their genetics. It's not their fault, but it is the outcome. Adopting a child or helping out with their family's children are of course very noble and positive, but it's not why they got married in the first place.
The purpose of marriage in the modern era is to make women rich.
That is the corrupted form of it. There is a reason marriage is supposed to be "Till death do we part" not "After you have enough money I'll leave and take whatever I can"
Even back when they couldn't leave, they just got to milk the poor bastard for money for their whole lives.
Marriage was never a good thing, but because women were not wanted in the workplaces, someone had to carry their weight. That's why marriage exists.
And she was required to keep his home upkept and his children properly raised.
I can tell you from experience I am well willing to pay the majority of my bills alone to have my food cooked, my laundry done, and my house clean, leaving me to relax and not worry after working all day.
It was a good thing when the roles of it were rigidly enforced by social shaming, so both parties felt the burn to keep up their side of the bargain. Women especially were under far harsher scrutiny to maintain their side because of how much easier their side was.
Well, I don't have or want kids, I'm capable of cooking and I can use a washing machine.
Maybe in the days before most mundane tasks were automated, their role was worth something.
But in 2021, where I can buy a vacuum that drives itself around the room without any input from me, I don't see their value. Every single thing they do can be automated except their biological purpose, but even that is being worked on.
Its not incapability. Its that I just worked 10-12 hours of hard labor and want to sit down. And then be handed good food. You don't know how great it is until you have it. We will never truly go back to those days, but when they did exist they were in fact good things.
You've started from the point of "I don't want them" and then worked backwards, so of course you won't see their value. You aren't looking at it as a cost/benefit analysis, only a "how can I justify myself." A trait you share with them.
Well, that's fair enough. Some people prefer to exchange their money for convenience.
I am looking at it with cost/benefit analysis, and based off losing half of my assets when it goes to shit and getting accused of rape to maximize the payoff, I think the cost is far too high.
Are you telling me that ordering food and having easy to use/automated appliances would somehow cost more than half someone will ever earn?
You have a very distorted view of history, when it comes to male and female relations. I would suggest watching this video.
Is there any more to this story? Like he was brandishing a weapon or something like that? It certainly doesn't look like it, but figure I should check.
UK has a lot of great people, but the future looks fucking bleak. Tyrants leading jackboot thugs, how do they live with themselves?
I can't imagine so, it's actually getting quite sad in the UK. They're actively trying to pass laws which makes everyone but straight white people a protected class.
They've tried it a few times and they actually fail usually. But I can't imagine that happening if labour get back in. Although if they do the country is fucked anyway
Women already are.
Edit : Why am I being downvoted for a fact? Misogyny laws were given a trial run after Sarah Everard's Nazi rallies got too violent to ignore.
If Labour gets back in, we're going to have a Fake Golden Age through misattributed euphoria. Then they're going to go democrat style regards elections, governance and control underneath it all.
The lower class/working class will ignore it as they get their £15 an hour (ignoring that costs have gone up), the middle class will bemoan being squeezed still even though they voted against the Conservatives and wanted change and the upper class will just shift tact along with the current leadership.
lol yeah his mouth. He was just murdering everyone with his words.
IMAGINE MY SHOCK
Shit, PJW even made his own shirt with it lol
I wonder how soon churches in the U.S. will get in trouble for this.
Gotcha. I was talking to my pastor about this very topic the other day.
Technically election fraud, meddling, and conspiracy to meddle are crimes, yet even with irrefutable proof, video evidence, and a live hacking demonstration of how the votes were changed during a Georgia Senate hearing by a security expert weren't enough to do anything about it.
So "technically", the First Amendment means nothing in today's Clown World, and I wouldn't doubt that we'll see the same sort of nonsense happening in the U.S., in the not too distant future.
Marriage between the same sex makes no sense. It's more like a tax scam.